Rigorous Honesty, in the search of recovery from gross obesity. Mainly opinion, not advice. Some speculation, some errors, some fiction.
Sugar, grain and processed products are not food. Omega 6 oil and dairy should be mainly avoided.

Pages

Monday, February 27, 2017

Opinion Masquerading as Stoic Philosophy

I will remind everyone that we live in a world of rising carbon dioxide levels and we humans are having lung/breathing issues and human energy production (common overeating) already. This suggests that the world is over populated unless we cut our production of carbon dioxide considerable. This means a throttling of live style, or returning to a population where the carbon dioxide level near level or less that 300 ppm. aka 1960 level of population.

Opinion Masquerading as Stoic Philosophy

So there is this old philosophy which was created within a less evolved culture, some 2300 or is it 2700 or 2000 years ago. It had some guidelines on how to live, and different sages and authors had different guidelines, some of which are mutually exclusive. So a modern professor can pick from the various translation and documents and come up with a list that he likes, and say it is stoic doctrine, yet the belief may also be found elsewhere. So is it Stoic, if the Stoics copied it from elsewhere?

I think it is wonderful that someone would take the time to document what they actually believe. I do hope that this is what they actually do, not just what they would like to do.

To live by virtue is all fine and good, but until the total list of virtues is listed and explored, and each virtue is defined well enough to live by, it is just talk. These people had the habit and the regulation of exposing all deformed children, and any ungifted when the ungifted was recognized, even against the mothers wishes. Men did not dare challenge the City state. Exile or death was often the other choice. How do we rationalize this with Stoicism unless Stoicism was but a minor philosophy? Now, I think that living by virtue is a good thing, but it is the selection of the virtues that becomes the real issue.

Second issue is vegetarianism. No culture has had success as vegetarian, although many adult individuals do survive at strict vegetarians. Modern vegetarian mothers produce a high frequency of autistic children. As some autism relates to short neuron column spacing, it may be related to the protein and fat supply during early growth, conception to two or three years. I coach archery, and some are very slow or never do develop muscles. These people have always turned out to be either vegetarians or dietetics. The senors are frequently on stations also that dis troy muscle growth. For these reasons I have doubt that vegetarianism is good for active people, but I do not care what others actually do. I do not have the right to push my views onto others, but I do have the right to express my views, and if you get huffy or are offended, it is your problem.

"V. I will reject nationalism and any other kind of parochial view of humanity. My creed is that of cosmopolitanism."

and Paul "Examples include adherence to in-group doctrine, hostility to and claims
of superiority over out-groups, and seeking out evidence (and company)
that reinforces rather than challenges our existing beliefs."

We may need to make substantial change in our lives if we grew up and worked under tyrants until we obtained logical independence. Our views, beliefs, values may need to be adjusted multiple times in our lives for our survival. In some professions, that take guidance or direction from government, rejecting nationalism is just not an option. What I am getting at is some rules cannot be rationally applied for some people. That is not saying that these are not good rules in theory.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that some guidelines are just not applicable to some lives, and some realities. It is apparent we humans are due a major die off, and that decision, or the decision to live, will be made by each individual, group, Provence, Country.

Trump is trying to shut down immigration. Is that so bad to stabilize the US population, even if the expressed political reason is wrong? How much political following would he get if he said, "the Co2 is rising. We need to stabilize or cut our population, but we do not want to cut our lifestyle, which produces half of the Co2. So we could let those refugees die overseas, and we need to increase our defense systems to be able to prevent the brown hoards from taking over and we need to block them from coming in. Let them die off elsewhere."

But I live in Canada, and am old. It is the younger generations problem now. As the philosophy professors become increasingly irrelevant to society, all we need do is ask how irrelevant is what they say to my life?